Realizations

Last night I realized, if I want to up my viewership, all I need to do is announce a live blog. That magic refresh button seems to do wonders for my page view count. Last night's Oscar blog got three times as many viewers in 24 hours as any other post has in total. So thanks to all those who tuned in. I know Chester enjoyed it. Hopefully the rest of you did too. (Yeah, that's what we call a shout out, Cheddar, how do you like them apples?)

Today I realized that I really need a day job. As much as I love my afternoon/evening job, driving two hours to and from work every day is becoming tedious. Anybody know anyone hiring for mornings in Seattle? At this point I'd scrub toilets. I just need something to pay rent. 

An hour ago, I realized (again) that negativity is too easy. After a week's worth of Charlie Sheen and almost 24 hours of Oscar-bashing, I'm sick of it. Is it ironic that I'm complaining about people complaining too much? I wouldn't know. Alanis Morissette has forever ruined my understanding of that word and its definition.

Tonight I realized that I may not be ready for Chuck to end after all. Also, that Chuck and Sarah make a very good looking pair of bank robbers. That scene of tonight's episode where the soon-to-be-newlyweds rob a crime syndicate bank while interspersing bits of dialogue about their upcoming wedding may have been one of the most enjoyable Chuck moments of the last two seasons. It was like classic Season 1 again.

Just now I realized this was a lame theme for a blog post.


UPDATE: Just realized why I love Jon Stewart. http://tv.gawker.com/

UPDATE: A quote from this week's Fairly Legal, which I'm finally watching. "Very few people can create something. Most people, they comment on it...." Final realization - I really want to be a television script writer. Time to focus on the spec scripts. 

The Oscars

And only ten minutes over time... not bad. Thanks to you who read along with me, and those who will try to sort through this mess later.

----------------------

Kings Speech... which means of the awards I predicted, I only got one wrong... I saw an interesting quote on Twitter earlier today that sums it up pretty well. "I've seen Civil War reenactments with less predictable winners than tonight's Academy Awards."

----------------------

And...... Best Picture goes to???

----------------------

I don't understand why people are calling this the "worst Oscars ever." There is nothing more wrong about these Academy Awards than any other year. Yes, James Franco could be a little more enthusiastic. Yes there are some awkward moments. Yes it seems to be dragging on. But let's be honest. It's an awards show. There is no way to make it into Modern Family. It just will never be that entertaining. It can't be. It isn't the same beast. I think this year was a valid effort by the Academy to try to make things a little more youthful but still pay tribute to it's history. Nice job Academy. They shouldn't stop trying to do better, but they also don't deserve the abuse I'm seeing them get on Twitter and Facebook and TV review websites.

----------------------

Jennifer Lawrence is absolutely beautiful. Just adding that comment.

----------------------

No one is surprised. - Natalie Portman wins best Actress.

----------------------

Not a fan of Hilary Swank. But I'm biased because I live in Bellingham.... if you don't get that joke, that's exactly why.

----------------------

Now that is a dress. Anne Hathaway's 27th costume change of the night.

----------------------

Gwyneth Paltrow has been proving she can sing for almost a year now. So why is it that I still cringe expecting her to fall apart every time I see her with microphone? She always gets away with it, even if she isn't perfect.
----------------------
Loving that the red glowing "Exit" signs just got featured in this song. #OscarDetailsYouDidntNotice

----------------------

I have basically stopped updating. Why? Because I'm no longer paying close enough attention to notice details. I'm getting bored Academy. Your "young/hip" awards show is losing my focus. Although the DownyJr/Law presentation was enjoyably light hearted. You'd think more people in a crowd of actors could pull off a scripted joke and make it sound natural.

----------------------

"A really sexy movie star... drink it in Hugh" - Billy Crystal makes the 87th Hugh Jackman crack of the night.

----------------------

At least he said "forgive me" before he made the political moment, and quickly moved it back to the movies. That's what we call a classy moment.

----------------------

Really? We're taking up time for an "autotune the movies" segment? The really sad part is that I'm kind of enjoying it.... Except the Twilight part. That just ruined it.

----------------------

"Who is this guy?" - What the world is thinking right now. But he's pretty funny and kinda sweet. Not bad Oscar rookie.

----------------------

Still need to see "Tangled." Also, this song has convinced me that I need to work with Zachary Levi someday. I've always loved him, but this makes him seem like he'd be fun to work with.

----------------------

So excited for this part!!! It's like the Grammy's but not ridiculous.

----------------------

Somebody actually wrote a speech. I didn't realize people did that at televised awards shows anymore. It sounded monotone, but at least it wasn't rambling. So let her finish!!!!!!!!

----------------------

If Twilight looked like that, I might actually watch it.

----------------------

Lord of the Rings to welcome Kate Blanchett. I'm interested to see where this goes. --- Ahh, make up. Of course?

----------------------

Why wasn't Daft Punk nominated for score? For the record, I want Zimmer to win. Just because I love him.

----------------------

Not sure how I feel about the business announcement during the awards show. It would be a little better if they hadn't already made that announcement a week ago. Then at least there'd be the "excitement" factor. As it was it just seemed out of place. Hurray! ABC will be showing the Oscars forever. I just can't care.

----------------------

Christian Bale winning supporting actor puts my count at 2 for 3. Also, my dad just commented: "He didn't sound like that in Batman. How did he hide his accent?" My response was "Acting."

----------------------

First Charlie Sheen joke of the night comes from James Franco in a dress. How long do you think it will be before he bashes the guy in a radio/tv/newspaper interview? But I thought it was hilarious.

----------------------

Anne Hathaway bashing Hugh Jackman in Les Miserables fashion. Priceless. Especially because it calls to mind the "I am WOLVERINE!" moment from two years ago when Hugh hosted.

----------------------

Is it unreasonable to say that the screenwriters should get as much time to speak as the actors? Seriously, Sorkin had less than half of the time that Melissa Leo had.

----------------------

How is Toy Story an adapted screen play? I know they just said it was based on the previous films but come on... We call those "sequels" not adapted screenplays.

----------------------

Yep. Toy Story takes home animated picture. Could it ever have gone any other way?

----------------------

Really? That's the best joke they could come up with for Justin? "I'm Banksy"??? The "app for that" gag was pretty decent though.

----------------------

Extra points for accidental swearing while talking about fake looking acceptance speeches. I love her a little bit right now. Not really feeling her last line though.

----------------------

Well I'm 0 for 1. Congratulations to Melissa Leo though. I guess I need to see "The Fighter"

----------------------

Kirk Douglas, stalling on reading the Supporting Actress winner is making me crack up. I feel terrible for those poor women though.

----------------------

I agree, Kirk Douglas, Anne Hathaway IS gorgeous.

----------------------

Internet pundits are saying James Franco looks stoned... I think he just looks terrified. Maybe that's just me.

----------------------

My television has been commandeered during the commercial breaks by my father who wants to watch sports. Lovely.

----------------------

Funny how Tom Hanks' speech about the triple threats gets blown right out the window right off the bat by a film winning in art direction which was not nominated for either of the other two awards.

----------------------

How do we feel about the Oscars trying to be young, fresh and hip by looking back at its age-old history?

----------------------

FOR THE WIN! A Random Back to the Future reference to end the opening host video.... LOVE IT!

----------------------

"You just got Inceptioned" - Alec Baldwin

----------------------

"I loved you in Tron" - James Franco

----------------------

Apparently it was a year of dance and fights, if the opening montage was any indication.

----------------------

What was with Tom Hanks' mockery-ridden furious hand gestures?

----------------------

If anybody cares, here's my predictions...
Best Picture - Kings Speech
Actor in a Leading Role - Colin Firth
Actress in a Leading Role - Natalie Portman
Actor in a Supporting Role - Christian Bale
Actress in a Supporting Role - Helena Bonham Carter
Animated Feature - Toy Story 3

The rest I don't really care about. I think the two supportings could go other directions, but I'm pretty sure the other four are all but locked up.

----------------------

Breaking News: Actors Happy to Be Here at the Oscars

----------------------

Alright, I've got my frozen pizza cooked and cut, the chips are laid out, the dip is mixed, and an ice cold Pepsi (think they'll pay me for product placement?) laid out beside me. I am ready for the Oscars to begin... too bad there's still a half hour left.

----------------------

OK, I know I said I wasn't going to comment on the red carpet, but I've taken a peek at both ABC's and E!'s fashion coverage, and I'm cringing every time one of these "reporters" asks a question. Also... is it the year of ugly cream colored dresses?

-------------

Live blogging the Oscars... just to see what all the fuss is about.

I'll just update this post with new information, so you can keep refreshing the page if you're actively interested, or you can just tune in after the ceremony to see all my comments out of context.

If anybody comments here during the Oscars, I'll try to address them live in the blog.

Starting at 8E/5P. I don't do all that red carpet nonsense.

Rerelease

When I first created this site, I didn't really have a good sense of what it was going to be or where I wanted to take it. Since I've started doing my daily post self-challenge, I have given the blog's intention a lot more thought. It has become a place for me to talk about both the stories I love, and why I enjoy them, and the stories I don't, and what irks me about them.

With the reexamined purpose in mind, I've made a couple of minor surface changes to the design of the blog to try to reflect what's inside a little more.

I arbitrarily changed the title to one that I liked better. Essentially, "Three Letter Acronyms" was mildly clever, but it didn't mean anything at the casual glance. You had to actually look at the blog to understand that it had anything to do with television. I'm hoping that the new title helps correct that a little bit. Also, "Network Reprogramming" was always a part of this blog, and when I replaced it as my signature with my name, I was sad to see it go. Now I'm glad to have it back.

After I changed the title, I had to change the subtitle description to match, so I stole a line from last night's introspective post, and made it work.

Then I changed the layout of that side a little >>> to play up the archive of old posts and highlight the available content a little more.

Then, to top it all off, I took the last half of my "Why Television?" post and made it its own page up at the top. I figured it served kind of as an "about the blog" kind of page.

I also considered changing the overall page design to a more standard white background with black text, but I couldn't find a pre-designed template that I liked with that color scheme. I'll keep working on it though, so don't be surprised if you take a look at a page one day and the blog looks entirely different.

Why Television?

It's a question I've been asked a few times recently. What sparked my "sudden" interest in television? So I thought I'd take a minute to answer it here one time. I'd say once and for all, but I've found my love of television to be an ever evolving and developing sort of passion, so I feel like whatever answer I give will be outdated in a few months. The writer in me refuses to be discouraged though, so I'll try to put my love of television, in it's current form, down into words. Here goes nothing.

First off, my love of television isn't sudden. Starting back in middle school, when my family upgraded our cable package and we got the Disney channel for the first time, I have been much more than a casual fan of TV. So if we're going to talk about where the spark came from, that would be it. Thanks Dumbo! (The only show I remember from this momentous time of my life.) More than a love of television though, I think what it really sparked in me was a love of entertainment. A love of stories. Although, if we were being truly honest, I think my love of stories stems even further back to the bed time stories my dad used to make up for me every night before I went to sleep. Those, more than anything else from my early childhood, probably shaped who I am today.

When I got to high school, there were no television classes, but there was a drama program. So my love of stories and entertainment, naturally, took me into theatre. All through high school, my free time was consumed by this world of entertainment I had built up around myself. I spent hours after school backstage developing light plots, creating sound effects, building sets and just generally helping out with rehearsals, all for the sake of helping to tell a story on stage. At about 7 or 8 at night I would come home exhausted, plop myself down on the couch, turn on the TV and watch prime time.

College became a continuation of high school, and I continued pursuing my theatrical talents in classes during the afternoons and rehearsals in the evenings, and spent my late nights and mornings watching and reading about television. Graduating from college, and working for a professional theatre, I once again find myself following the same pattern, but the time allotted to television has increased dramatically.

So there you have the brief history of my life, spent immersed in entertainment. But you may have noticed my life has been as much about theatre as it has been about television. So why am I choosing to write about TV?

Well, there's a few different parts to that answer. The medium of television is constantly changing. It is actively developing into the internet and ipods and smart phones and who knows where else it’s headed in the future. Aside from some lighting advancements, theatre hasn’t changed much since the Greeks. There's a value in the tradition and history of theatre, but there's an excitement and liveliness that more people recognize in television.

On another note. More often than not, in theatre, you’re working on a show that’s been done dozens of times in other places around the country, and your audience has usually seen it before. Television provides new series (even though a lot of them are rehashes of older ideas) every season. That’s not to say that there are no new stories to tell in theatre, there are new works written all the time, they're just less well known than, say, a new television series would be. People go to the theatre to see Shakespeare, or big budget musicals they've heard a lot about, and not much else. Television has more range.

Tying it all back into storytelling, here is where I find the most crucial difference between the two mediums. With theatre, the entire story is contained in the tiny jar of a 3 hour performance. Theatre doesn't get sequels. Television, on the other hand, seems to never stop. I love the episodic development structure of television. Revealing story pieces bit by bit and tying them into older arcs. Growing characters and relationships both within a 45 minute episode, and within the greater season. Until a show gets cancelled, and sometimes even after, the stories continue on screen and in people's minds and conversations. There's a reason I'm one of hundreds of bloggers whose chosen subject matter is their favorite television shows. 

Television, at its heart, is always about the story. And that's what I love.

You know, unless the story is Charlie Sheen. Then I'm not interested. 

Critics and Community

Both of these articles are excellent. I highly recommend reading them.

This first article compares Glee and Community with the eye of a dispassionate observer. Of course, from the way I found myself agreeing with most of his points, I'm willing to bet he's on the Community side of the fence he just built. UPDATE: After talking with the author last night on Twitter (this website is doing more to flatten the world of modern media than Facebook ever did) I've confirmed what I thought. He's a Community fan first, and a casual observer of Glee for the purpose of his weekly reviews. Find the article here.

This article is by one of Community's rare critical detractors. He's not a fan, but he hasn't been able to figure out why. He thinks he's finally got the answer. Check it out here.

I actually agree with the factual information in both articles almost without exception. Their interpretations of those facts, especially in the second article, aren't necessarily dead on, but they're interesting at the least.

To those of you who find me tolerable to follow, these articles are definitely worth the read.

Who Knew?

I planned on watching Modern Family live tonight at 9pm. So I turned on the TV fifteen minutes early, since I had nothing better to do with that extra quarter hour, and made a discovery. That discovery was that ABC's Better With You is still on the air. When last I invoked that show's name, to comment on its similarities to NBC's Perfect Couples, I did so in the past tense, assuming it had been cancelled. I made this assumption because I hadn't seen new episodes popping up in my Hulu queue since well before Christmas.

Apparently, Better With You is just one of those shows that Hulu inexplicably can't provide for the viewing public. But that's another rant that I've already given. For more on that, see my January post entitled "Hulu's Posting Rights."

Anyway, I'm glad to see that this year's original relationship comedy is still kicking. Not because it's particularly good, but mainly because that means that all three of the couples clones are still on the air together. This provides you, my readers, with a particularly interesting opportunity. Three nearly identical shows for you to enjoy on three different nights. You can either use it as an opportunity to compare or contrast the three, or if you just particularly like the format, you can watch it three times and barely notice the difference. Tuesdays at 9:30, you can watch Traffic Light. Wednesdays, 8:30, you've got Better With You. And Thursdays at 8:30 you can watch Perfect Couples.

Alright, now I'm logging off to watch Modern Family and the ridiculousness that is Haley's ever-changing hair and Phil's never ending crush on his step-mother-in-law.

Raising Expectations on Raising Hope

There's something about FOX's Raising Hope that always makes me laugh. It's more than just well written jokes. Tons of thirty minute comedies have those and can't keep viewers entertained. Have you ever gone to see a stand up comedian and been incredibly bored by their act, but when you look back on their material, you realize that most of their observational humor should have been pretty funny? They're jokes were well written, but they didn't make you laugh. Well the same thing can happen in television. Well written jokes don't always translate into comedy. There's something about the way a joke is used, the way it's placed in a script or spaced throughout a season, that has the power to make it hilarious. Raising Hope has mastered the art of joke placement.

The episode starts off with Bert naked and hiding from Maw Maw behind a pillow. Pretty much the entire teaser is a long-form of a joke that has made recurring appearances throughout the first season. The senile Maw Maw has mistaken one of the Chance family men for her dead husband and has decided to have her way with them. Seeing the look of shear terror on Bert's face, I couldn't stop the storm of internal laughter from shaking my stomach.

Then, they ended the teaser with a reasonably funny joke where Bert asks Jimmy, "you think this kind of stuff happens in other people's houses in the middle of the night, and they're just too embarrassed to talk about it?" Jimmy's lackluster but hopeful "Man, I hope so" left me wanting a little more out of the joke that led into the opening credits. I was actually disappointed for a moment before I forgot about it. Little did I know that their teaser ending joke was really just a thirty minute set up.

At the end of the episode, Maw Maw, still senile, has once again set her romantic sights on Jimmy to fulfill the role of her dead husband. As Jimmy furiously rubs hot sauce on his neck to discourage any inappropriate necking, he repeats his father's earlier question with a note of desperation in his voice. "Do you think other families have to deal with this stuff, but they're just too embarrassed to talk about it?" Virginia's simple "nope" is a punchline you see coming as soon as the joke starts being retold, but it still managed to break a literal LOL from between my lips.

Another notable mention of Raising Hope's excellent use of the recurring joke comes early in the episode after we find out that Virginia's cousin is dropping by to pay a visit. Mama Chance starts having one of her panic attacks, and we get to see the third incarnation of Virginia's "thing" involving Bert's finger and a stroking of the nose. A little ridiculous at first, but unlike Family Guy's drawn out jokes I criticized in the last post, this one seems to get funnier the more they use it. Think of it as the difference between Peter holding his knee and the recurring and escalating incarnations of the Chicken Fight. It's the difference between "they're still doing that?" and "they're doing it again!"

Anyway. Raising Hope also has a talent for finding visual humor. It's these visual jokes where baby Hope steals the show every time. After Virginia gets done telling her story about her no-good cousin and admits that her last attempt to keep the cousin away involved her declaring "Maw Maw died." The camera immediately cuts to the dumbstruck look on Bert and Jimmy's faces, as though to say, "I can't believe you'd stoop that low..." It's another predictable and mildly funny moment, but then they cut to a shot of baby Hope, with exactly the same look on her face, and once again, I laughed out loud, this time joined by my little brother, who doesn't even regularly watch the show. Later on in the episode, when Hope gets her hands on a laser pointer, and you see the red dot flickering across people's faces for an entire scene of dialogue, I couldn't stop chuckling. Their commitment to the joke made it funny, like the Family Guy knee bit is supposed to, but Raising Hope actually pulled it off by putting the ongoing humor in the background, rather than making it the focus of the scene.

Of course, every once in a while, a joke is just funny. Regardless of how it is placed in the script or tied into other events, you're going to laugh. The Maw Maw scavenger hunt, where Jimmy, Sabrina and an increasing number of friends pile into the van to chase Maw Maw from friend to friend all the way back home was exactly that kind of joke. Pretty much anything with Cloris Leachman in it is a win for me.

So what am I saying? Raising Hope is funny in that excellent classic sitcom kind of way. You don't expect a lot but it manages to blow you away with predictable jokes and a little bit of redneck absurdity because they're used brilliantly. It's a different kind of funny from a show like Community which goes out of its way to stretch the boundaries of the conventional sitcom. Raising Hope manages to make the boundaries work for them by staying inside.

Every week, Raising Hope manages to raise the bar on what viewers should be able expect from the least of our thirty minute comedies.

Family Guy and the Fringe Principle Reexamination

My regular readers will remember my made up Fringe Principle from one of my earlier posts about the Grammy Awards and Lady Gaga. Basically, the Fringe Principle states that just because a line is able to be crossed doesn't mean that the line should in fact be crossed. In the earlier post I discussed how Lady Gaga's increasingly crazy antics have led to a degradation of quality in musical performance in recent years, and that eventually I would love it if she revealed that her entire career had been some Borat style character study to see how far she could take the world of pop culture before it finally called her on her insanity.

Tonight I had a discussion with one of my very good friends, let's call him Patrick. We were watching Family Guy and discussing how we felt that, in recent years, the show had sacrificed a lot of its cutting edge "I can't believe they just did that!" humor in favor of more time filling "I can't believe they're still doing that!" humor. Neither of us find modern Family Guy to be anywhere near as funny as the originals.

To give you a particularly timely example. In this weekend's most recent episode, Herbert (the old pedophile with a thing for Chris) and another older gentleman get into a physical confrontation. For the better part of ten minutes (almost a full third of the episode), the audience is expected to sit and watch the slow motion old man fight where a "blow," consisting of little more than a push on the face and a small amount of balance lost, can take almost ten seconds to land. The joke pulls all of its humor, if it has any at all, from the length of time that the show drags out the bit, not from the merit of the joke itself. It's the same thing every time Peter falls and scrapes his knee.

Anyway, as a part of our discussion, Patrick mentioned how he believes that at this point in his career Seth Macfarlane must be incredibly bored with his animated empire and just be toying with just how far he can stretch the limits of humor before his audience starts pushing back.

The two thoughts seemed to go together well. Lady Gaga's imaginary quest for artistic vision and Seth Macfarlane's made up quest for comedic gold.

The problem is, both entertainers seem to be trying to reach their goals Christopher Columbus style, by circling back on their goals after running too far in the opposite direction.

McKinley High: Where Nobody Ever Learns a Thing

I have often argued about the merits of Glee with friends of mine. Usually I am arguing that the show doesn't have any, and my friends are usually saying something like "but it's GLEEE!!!!" You'll understand why I got frustrated quickly. I'll never understand why I kept talking to these people about Glee.

Anyway, occasionally one of my friends would make an intelligent argument and we'd actually get a discussion going. One particular discussion from way back in early season one comes to mind particularly clearly. My friend and I were talking about the characters and their developmental arcs and whether or not they helped the show or held it back. It was my opinion that the characters were incredibly simplistic and it bothered me how rigidly they stuck to their single-minded principles. My friend disagreed, saying it was true of the high school mindset to be locked onto one goal above the pursuit of all others. In time we compromised our opinions. I admitted that the single track mind was true to high school life, and he conceded that the Glee writing staff probably wasn't thinking that deeply about it when they wrote their characters.

Well as I've watched recent episodes this season, I've remembered this discussion on several occasions as I wonder and marvel at how little the characters have changed since early season 1. Sure, Glee tries to hoodwink us by showing how the cheerleaders have turned against Sue Sylvester, and how Kurt has managed to escape his oppression, but have any of the characters actually grown at all? I would argue they haven't.

Sweeping general statements are one thing, how about some examples?

Rachel
Season 1 - Appoints herself unofficial group leader to steer the group towards what is best for her solo career
Season 2 - Decides she doesn't need men so she can focus on her solo career

Finn
Season 1 - Struggles with the issues of being a father/brother/quarterback and being cheated on by Quinn
Season 2 - Struggles with the issues of being a friend/leader/quarterback/ and making a cheater of Quinn

Quinn
Season 1 - Cheats on Finn with Puck, lies to Finn about her pregnancy with some ridiculous story about a hot tub
Season 2 - Cheats on Sam with Finn, lies to Sam about her mono with some ridiculous story about a gumball

Santana
Season 1 - Tells Finn Quinn is cheating to break them up so she can hook up with him
Season 2 - Tells Sam Quinn is cheating to break them up so she can hook up with him

Mr. Shu
Season 1 - Is an inept teacher who causes more problems than he fixes because of his limited point of view
Season 2 - Is an inept teacher who causes more problems than he fixes because of his limited point of view

I suppose that you could argue that the complete lack of character development is still true to high school though. After all, I've never known a teenager who hasn't repeated a few of their past mistakes.

But it's funny to hear people try to tell me that the Glee characters are "interesting to watch." I'll grant you that some of them have good voices. I'll grant you that most of them are incredibly attractive 20 something year olds. I'll even grant you that a couple of them can act. I probably will never grant you that they are interesting to watch.

Definitions: Redemption

I think a word may need redefining. I read multiple pre-air reviews for last night's episode of Community and a couple of them promised that those of us worried about Pierce and his downward trajectory (that would be me! See last week's post entitled "Community's Dark Turn") would greatly appreciate this week's mockumentary episode because it would "go a long way" towards redeeming Pierce. I was promised redemption, so before I declare absolutely whether or not it was delivered, let's share one of those really annoying definition moments that you find in high school valedictorian speeches.

Dictionary.com defines "redemption" as: 

1. An act of redeeming  or the state of being redeemed...

Ok, well that is less than helpful and the random underlining is annoying. Next!

2. deliverance; rescue...

Alright, let's use that one. Rescue. 

According to the reviews I read ahead of the airing of the episode (which I already promised I was going to stop doing, see "Expectations and the Greatest Game of Dungeons and Dragon Ever Played"), Pierce should be redeemed, or rescued, at least in part, during the episode. That was the one expectation I allowed myself to have going in, and the "at least in part" basically rendered even that one all but meaningless. Even a little upward movement would qualify as a satisfactory meeting of the expectation. 

What aired last night, though, was an episode full of Pierce's most cruel-hearted attention seeking stunts yet. He pitted the study groupers against themselves and each other and he faked his own death(bed) to make them feel sorry for him! It doesn't get any worse than that. In other words, Pierce hit rock bottom last night. So did he learn something? Was he rescued or redeemed at the end? Not really. 

When Pierce decides to call off his prank on Jeff, arguably the cruelest of his "bequeathments", he does so only out of concern for his own safety after Winger threatens to beat him should the town car supposedly carrying his father arrive with only disappointment. Which, to give Jeff some credit, is exactly what he does when that happens. When Shirley, Britta and Annie learn valuable lessons from their gifts, they have nothing to do with Pierce's intended consequences. And Troy never gets even a cathartic beat down or hidden life-lesson. He ends up with only awed disappointment. 

So where was the redemption? Well, because I was looking for it so hard, I noticed a brief moment during Annie's speech when she returns the tiara. Pierce's face showed a flash of recognition for his own mistakes, but then it was gone again. Even at the end of the episode, when everybody is peering through the window at the sleeping Jeff and Pierce, the study group finds themselves once again completely isolated from Pierce, both figuratively and literally. 

If the group is going to reconnect, Pierce has to genuinely repent for his misdeeds. I just don't see that coming. Yet. I hold out hope. Apparently though, "Televisionary" writer Jace Lacob doesn't think so. He provides a bit of meta-thinking on why Pierce's character has spiraled through the floor this season. If you're interested in a thought-provoking read, go ahead and follow this link.

Just for fun, here are the other 6 definitions of "redemption" found on dictionary.com.

3. Theology . deliverance from sin; salvation.
4. atonement for guilt.
5. repurchase, as of something sold.
6. paying off, as of a mortgage, bond, or note.
7. recovery by payment, as of something pledged.
8. conversion of paper money into specie.

Maybe those early reviews meant to use "redemption" in terms of definition number 5, with regards to the diamond tiara? Even that would be a stretch though.

Product or Perspective: The Reason for a Disappointing Season

I realized something last night as I reread my review of both Traffic Light and Mad Love. I have been rather disappointed by this season's new shows pretty much across the board. With the exception of FOX's Lonestar and Raising Hope, nothing has really "wowed" me this year, and Lonestar managed to get itself cancelled before it's third episode (more on that in my October post entitled "Cancellation"). Even with the new round of midseason pick ups, only USA's Fairly Legal managed to impress me even a little bit. My opinion of this year's shows is just lackluster at best.

I didn't used to be this way. I think it's safe to say that if Greek premiered a month ago, I would have stopped watching after only a couple of episodes, but since I started watching it years ago, it is a guilty pleasure I can't get enough of (and I am terribly disappointed that the series finale is only a couple of weeks away). So what has brought about this change towards the cynical?

Is it that I have begun to actively critique, in writing, what makes a show good or bad in my mind's eye? By doing so, I force myself to watch the shows more critically than I would if I were just sitting down for a quiet evening of viewing. Has this taken away from my ability to enjoy a television program? On the contrary. I think, if anything, it has heightened my enjoyment. Part of what makes me love White Collar so much is my active involvement, not only in the story and characters, but in analyzing them and the writers. So there has to be more to it than that.

Is it, perhaps, just the change of time? As I get older and more mature, have I just lost patience with television? Well that's probably partly true. I have grown impatient with sloppy stories and careless character developments, yes. But I have also grown more patient in terms of waiting for stories and characters to flush themselves out. I no longer need the instant gratification that I got from Blue's Clues or Full House, where everything was instantly established and relatively self contained. Now I have more patience to wait for the relationship in Castle or the seasonal arc in White Collar to come to fruition. So that can't be the entirety of the reason.

Is it possible then, that this season has just seen a dip in network standards? As networks race to replace shows with ratings deemed unacceptably low because of an increasingly uncounted group of fans watching from the internet, do they more readily accept lesser quality shows in hopes of capturing our attention by the force of numbers? As easy as it would be to vilify and blame the Nielsen ratings system this way, it probably wouldn't be fair. After all, last year had it's ups and downs too. The year of Community and White Collar also gave us Glee and Vampire Diaries.

So where then, does my soured opinion come from? Well it's probably something I already mentioned, albeit indirectly. The sheer volume of shows. As a college student, I rarely had time for TV, and so I picked and chose which shows to watch, and only watched the ones I judged (in advance or through word of mouth a few episodes in) to be worth my time. Now, working part time and hunting for steadier employment, I've had a lot more free time to watch television, and this blog has provided me with an excuse to watch everything, even the bad. Without that initial filter in place, I'll occasionally find a good show I wouldn't otherwise have seen, but far more often, I'll catch myself watching a show that I normally wouldn't tune into in the first place.

Castle's Couple

It was recently brought to my attention that on Valentine's Day, my daily post was a cop-out link to somebody else's article on Glee. Apparently this was disappointing to my minimal fan base who were expecting something romantic and special for the day of love. Sorry to disappoint. And "no" is the answer to the question nobody asked. I wasn't too busy to write up a review or an analysis because I was on a sweet romantic adventure with a special someone. I just couldn't come up with anything to talk about that day. In all honesty, I'd probably have forgotten it was Valentine's Day altogether if it hadn't been for the constant Twitter reminders from famous people who were apparently spending their precious date time on their smart phones tweeting about the experience.

Anyway. In honor of the forgotten holiday, I've taken a page from E!Online and decided to do a television couple themed blog entry. If you didn't get the reference, click here to be sent to the online survey of television's hottest couples and vote for your favorites. But be forewarned. If any of my favorite couples lose out to anybody from Glee or anything with vampires, I will be quite upset and likely throw some sort of temper tantrum.

So I gave a lot of thought to the couples on that list and tried to come up with what made some of my favorites so much fun to watch and after much deliberation I've come to a conclusion as to which couple deserves to be (but probably won't be) named TV's best couple. My pick has to be Richard Castle and Kate Beckett from ABC's Castle.

Absolutely the best portrayed "Will They Won't They" couple I've ever seen on television, Castle and Becket clearly have strong feelings for the other. They're clearly in love with each other, but the timing has never worked out for the two of them to make a mutual confession, and they've never gotten together for anything more than a cover-maintaining kiss here and there. Pretty much the standard definition of the "Will They Won't They," right?

What makes Castle's couple different? It's the fact that the writers and the actors have managed to make us care about their love but not care if they get together. Their unique dynamic has all the viewing appeal that a good unmatched couple should have. We get to watch their relationship develop from episode to episode, and there's always room for more growth because the couple never reaches that point of mutual realization and connection. Every time they share a moment along their journey, we as the viewers are treated to a little boost of excitement for our hopeful romantics, and every time it doesn't work out, we feel sad for our heroes. The problem with most "Will They Won't They" couples, though, is that watching a pair of people skirt around a relationship for several seasons at a time can get frustrating when the audience starts to realize that any idiot would have made a move and ended the dance if it weren't scripted to not work out.

Castle and Beckett don't have that problem. Something about the actors' natural chemistry and the writers' insistence on keeping the romantic relationship within reach but still at arms length makes the Castle couple easy on the mind. Somehow this relationship manages to be in the foreground and the background at the same time. They're no Jim and Pam, who instantly called to mind their lack of a relationship every time one of them was on the screen in the early seasons of The Office. With Castle and Beckett, the relationship is never the driving force of the episode. The crime solving always takes precedence. We see this point hit home full force in this week's Valentine's Day episode of Castle.

Castle's personal investment in a murder suspect puts him and Detective Beckett at odds with each other. Tensions mount to the point where the two wind up in a screaming match that ends with Castle being thrown out of the precinct. Never during that argument, or at any point during the episode, did I fear for Castle and Beckett's personal relationship. Beckett clearly showed concern for Castle as she told him that he was just too close to the case to be useful, and later in the episode, when she harshly interrogates his friend, she tells him to wait in the observation room, softly informing him that he doesn't "want to be in there for this." The two clearly care about each other at all times, and Castle will often slip flirtatious or playful bits into his cases - it's a part of what makes him so fun to watch - but Castle and Beckett succeed at keeping work and play separate.

The love between the characters manages to seem genuine and unforced, so we don't worry when they're not together. The Castle couple gives us all the heartfelt warmth without the heart-pumping fear of a permanent split. We know that the two are meant to be together, and we're comfortable waiting.

At least I am.

The problem is that Castle and Beckett are a safe couple. They don't have that heart-wrenching uncertainty that can be so alluring for a season or two. So when the final votes for hottest TV couple are tallied, I'd put my safe money on a Finn and Rachel, or even a Leonard and Penny, before a Castle and Beckett.

Mad at Mad Love

Comedy can be a pretty hit or miss genre and all networks struggle to find the shows that stand out. NBC for example, gives us both Community (one of my favorite shows) and Outsourced (one of my least), while ABC has both Modern Family and Mr. Sunshine. CBS is no exception to this rule, but they tend to please my comedic pallet a little more often than the other networks between the Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother. So when I heard they had a new comedy coming out on Valentine's Day, I allowed myself to be hopeful and get a little excited.

I wasn't able to catch their new show, Mad Love, live last night, as I was busy watching the very sweet, sexy and all around smile-inducing V-Day episode of Chuck. Instead, I tuned into Mad Love this afternoon when it went up on the CBS website. For those of you who haven't seen it yet, let me explain to you how it starts out. Ted and Marshall are standing on the balcony of the Empire State Building looking out over the city discussing Ted's impending break up with his long term girlfriend and how he wants a more meaningful relationship... Oh wait a minute. Did I say Ted and Marshall? I meant Larry and Ben. The moment reminded me so much of an episode of How I Met Your Mother that I forgot they were different characters for a moment.

And can you blame me? The main character, played by Jason Biggs of American Pie fame, is almost identical to Josh Radnor. The two could be twins. Even Ben Radnor's mannerisms scream Ted Mosby. It's uncanny. Add to the mix that Bigg's love interest is played by Mother recurring actress Sarah Chalke, and they have a favorite bar that they meet in at least twice in the first episode, and it's easy to get confused.

So where does the show differ? Well first, the voice over narration is done by Larry, not Ben, so that's a change. It makes the fairytale story of Mad Love somewhat more sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek than Mother's roundabout path to the happy ending we all know is coming.

Also, Mad Love only has four friends who do everything together as opposed to Mother's six. It makes for a much more confined group dynamic. Larry seems like a combination of Marshall and Barney with the goofball attitude of the former and the womanizing bite of the latter, while Kate's (Chalke) friend seems like Robin with a little more attitude. But there's no loveable Lilly to balance out the crazy. I guess that's supposed to make it funnier. Throw in the girls' ditzy roommate and an incompetent elevator operator and you've pretty much got every character in the show.

Then there is the laugh track. As in, Mad Love has one. Now I know a lot of people who will instantly write off a show without bothering to view it just because it makes use of this artistic device (if you can call it that). Thankfully, I am not one of them. If I was, I would have missed out on some great mindless comedies like That 70's Show and the previously mentioned Big Bang Theory. When done well and combined with a show whose jokes are intelligently written, the laugh track can become an extra character that fades into the background and subtly affects the rhythm and pace to help tell the story.

I say all this by way of pointing out that I have nothing against a laugh track as an option. I just have something against it in this show. The laughter was even more noticeable than usual, and it pulled me out of the story, rather than helping me invest myself. There were an unusual amount of moments where I would hear laughter coming from my computer and think to myself "was that funny? Really?"

With all the similarities between the two shows, it's only natural that CBS put Mother and Mad Love back to back to try to piggy back their new comedy on to the coattails of the older success, but I'm worried that the natural comparison is only going to hurt the already fading Mother and it isn't going to help the newbie. Every time I think about how much Mad Love reminds me of Mother is another moment I'm not thinking about the jokes or the story.

Plus, having Mother and Mad back to back just makes me think of drunk driving.

Someone Else's Opinion

Does it count as a blog if I just link you to somebody else's article who sums up my own poorly worded opinions in a far more eloquent and detailed manner? I think so.

Here is an article I was sent that talks about Glee and how it has fallen apart this season. Essentially this is what I've been trying to say since the first episode of Glee aired.

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/02/14/can_glee_save_itself/index.html

Fringe Principle and the Gaga Effect

Before you read too far, I should warn you that this post has very little to do with Fringe, and even less to do with television in general. The only reason I'm invoking the name of the sci-fi (not to be confused with syfy) show is to call to mind a basic question that the show is good at raising. Just because a line can be crossed, does it mean that we should cross it?

We live in a world where pop artist Lady Gaga is considered a "visionary" artist by millions of fans both for her outlandish wardrobe and her blunt self confidence.

Here's my confession. I don't see it.

Now that's not to say I don't like Lady Gaga. I'm as big of a pop fiend, music-wise, as the next guy. I still can hear the notes of "Bad Romance" bouncing around my head whenever I drive past the stretch of highway I was travelling when I first heard it come on the radio. I just don't think she's a visionary. She might be a little bit insane. Either way though.

Whether you agree with her style or not, it's impossible to contradict the obvious: Whatever she's doing, whether it belongs on the stage or in a padded white room, it's crazy, and it's selling. Because it is working, it is putting an enormous amount of pressure on other pop artists to "perform" to her standards, both on the stage and in any public appearance. Just think of the technologically impaired Black Eyed Peas/Guitar Hero show that was the super bowl half time performance. Which brings us to tonight's Grammy Awards.

Now I'm not watching the Grammy's, so some of my comments may be made in ignorance, but from what I've heard via Twitter and Facebook, the theme of the night seems to be "over the top." Every act seems to be trying to out-gaga the next and we've had snakeskin pants and nude body suits. There were even some inexplicable ninja drummers. Of course, no matter what the performers do, it's hard to out-do the woman who shows up to the show in a giant dinosaur egg.

So here's my point: What is the point? Are muppets and faces in a jar really a metaphor for some deep personal emotion? Do giant wedding dresses with video images provide a window to the universal human experience? Does showing up at the music awards show in a giant egg really mean that you're trying to rebirth the music industry, or does it just mean that you're being as ridiculous as you can be to maintain your rabid frothing following?

Do these absurd performances serve a purpose beyond the self-serving need to delve into the absurd?

I keep expecting Gaga to break character someday and reveal that her entire pop existence has just been a giant "Emperor's New Clothes" type experiment. She'll point and laugh, and in her fit of hysterical laughter she'll choke out the words "See what I made you do? See what I convinced the world was 'artistic?'" And the whole of the pop world will be shamed into realizing how easily these supposed trend setters rush to follow the herd.

Maybe then I'll accept Lady Gaga as a visionary artist.

Acceptance

Apparently this was a good week for those shows that I still follow mostly out of habit. I already spent a good deal of time writing about how Glee managed to impress me, but this morning I put on Thursday's episode of 30 Rock and received an equally pleasant surprise.

For some reason, I found myself laughing at at a fairly decent portion of the jokes, as compared to my regular carefully calculated percentage of "almost none."

What was different about this week's episode? That's a very good question.

Maybe I'm just sentimentally attached to Valentines Day themed episodes for some inexplicable reason. That doesn't seem terribly likely though, as my experiences with Valentine's Day celebrations, and V-Day episodes by association, tend to average in the negative and peak at neutral zero.

More likely though, it's was a specific moment when the characters acknowledged their ridiculous simplicity. I have always complained the characters in 30 Rock are too dependent on two or three mildly amusing character traits on which the writers have tried to build entire motivations and decision making processes. If that sentence made as little sense as I think it did, basically I meant that the characters don't seem even remotely real (really? I'm complaining about characterization in a show that has intentionally never developed its characters? Yes. I am. I'm a pompous dick that way). Liz is an aging food obsessed woman. Jack is an absurdly patriotic right wing corporate nut. Tracy is a moron. Jenna is self involved. Lutz is pathetic. Kenneth is insane. Pete is a coward. Etc. I can never get emotionally invested in their antics because I can't imagine myself, or anyone I know, actually caring about any of their incredibly limited problems. Anyway, this has always been a sticking point for me with regards to the show.

This week though, they finally made their steady single-track motivations into a joke. Liz and Carol get in a fight, and Jack and Avery almost cross the Canadian border in a mobile meth lab because all four of them are motivated by one single characteristic that can not be budged. In the case of Liz and Carol, apparently it was stubbornness. With Jack and Avery it was patriotism. In the end, Jack is the only one who "quits," and he ends up being the most realistically human person on the show... ever.

Again, I am willing to admit that I'm looking for too much out of a show that made Kenneth a regular character, but that's part of why I don't like 30 Rock, I don't want to have to compromise my intelligence to laugh at Tracy's complete lack thereof.

I'll point you back to my first blog, and the Studio 60 quote therein. It pretty much sums up my feelings.

So good job, 30 Rock, for acknowledging your simplistic humor enough to divert from it a bit.

Don't worry, I won't expect it again next week.

Community's Dark Turn

Based on the strength of recent twitter campaigns it is easy to see that some fans are in an uproar over the lack of Shirley in the recent episodes of NBC's Community. In recent weeks she's had only a few lines interspersed throughout the episodes and she hasn't had her own B plot in a month. This week, she showed up for a few pointed glares at the beginning of the episode and a few "aww that's nice"es at the end, but was not in the episode otherwise.

It's hard to feel outraged though, because as much as I like Yvette Nicole Brown, Shirley is by far the least interesting character on the show. It's hard to find her uniquely important to the group dynamic when her reactions to everything are identical to Annie's. Don't believe me? Watch their side of the table during any group discussion. They're always in the same shot because they sit on the same side of the table, and they're always reacting in a very similar manner. Point being, I see why the writers are struggling to find a place for her in the stories, and I will excuse them for her recent absence, and hope that they find a way to make her relevant again.

What I do find terribly worrisome though is the writing team's insistence on making Pierce completely irredeemable. This week's episode ended with our favorite old racist lying in a drug induced coma on a park bench in the middle of the night surrounded by half empty pill bottles after abandoning the rest of the study group while Jeff's voice-over voice-mail warns him to get it together before it's (ominous word choice) too late.

You're a little too late, Jeff. Pierce, as a character, may be too far gone to recover. 

First we had Annie's anti-drug play where Pierce, in a quest for attention, almost singlehandedly increased the national average for at risk teenagers. At the end, he had no remorse and didn't even acknowledge his mistake in any way. "Even though I did nothing wrong, I'm still going to give you money."

Then there was the D&D campaign where Pierce, again almost single-handedly, bullied Fat Neal (I appreciate the hypocrisy of using the nickname) into suicide. The fact that, in the end, it was his bullying that saved Neal's life isn't even redeeming because, as the narrator/janitor tells us, Pierce learned nothing. 

Now we have Pierce actively choosing his exclusion from the group, choosing his own drug addiction over his friends. 

What worries me is that the Community writers have a habit of acknowledging and accepting consequences of their story lines. Don't believe me? Pierce was in a wheel chair with dual leg casts for weeks after a prat fall. Weeks. 

There's a saying that once you've hit the bottom, the only way to go is up. Well the problem I see is that Pierce has hit the rock bottom and even begun digging with no sign that he's even trying to pull back on the throttle. With writers as committed to consequences as this team, I'm wondering how Pierce can remain in the group for much longer.

Did Chevy Chase refuse to sign a Season 3 contract or something?

UPDATE: Pierce's recent storyline is what I considered to be the "Dark Turn," not the episode at large. Overall, I greatly enjoyed Community's second stab at a V-Day episode. In fact, I even am enjoying watching Pierce's fall. I'm just worried about how he's going to come out of the dive. 

Proposal

I have been inspired by my recent television viewings. Suddenly I have been hit with a genius idea for a new sitcom. Let this blog serve as my proposal to any and all networks who might want to pick it up.

It's called Relationships. The plot will center around three couples, all in varying stages of their relationships, hence the title.

Wait, you say that one's been done before? Dozens upon dozens of times? Well how's this for a twist? They're all in the same family!

That's been done too, huh? Well what if one of the couples isn't really in a relationship? They're just on-again-off-again?

Also been done? Screw all those ideas then. What if we make them all friends from college and the same age?

Ok, I see the trend. That's been done too. What we need is something truly original... I've got it! Here's an idea I bet nobody's come up with yet! We'll change the title of the show from Relationships to Traffic Light to try to disguise it a little bit.

Wait a minute? Now you're complaining that the title doesn't make any sense? Fine. We can add in a bit in the pilot episode about how relationships are all about signals, or how sometimes you have to slow down or stop, and sometimes you have to charge ahead. We can even make that bit a voice over monologue by one of the characters. We'll include a moody shot of all three couples standing together on a deserted road staring at the camera for effect. Even better, we'll put a traffic light above their heads!

You say the traffic light overhead is too contrived? Fine, cut that, but do the rest.

Brilliant!

What's that? FOX had the same idea and premiered the show on Tuesday?

Damn it.

Terrific TV Tuesday

Glee

Well, it was only a matter of time, but Glee has finally done the impossible. They have made an episode that I was able to enjoy without a need to constantly complain. They still straddled their line between drama and parody, but they managed to pull it off today, and I'm still not entirely sure how. 

The dramatic moments, like Rachel's moment with Finn in the nurses office, or Quinn's inner conflict as she and Finn circled the ghost light in the auditorium, were touching and almost real without the forced cheese or sappiness that Glee usually tries to cram into it's meaningful bits. 

The moments of comedic parody, like the girls sleepover and their ridiculous pajamas or the girl fight in the hall were outlandish without being over the top. In fact, the whole episode was fairly low key. Nobody got together, nobody broke up, nobody had any huge dramatic fights. Even the moment I was expecting to turn into the disaster, Kurt admitting his feelings for Blaine, played out like a couple of mature high school students discussing their relationship. The whole episode just worked. It might have had something to do with the fact that they left out Sue and her insanity, but the episode just worked for me. In fact, they left out all of the adults and their oddly messed up lives. That may have been the key. I really don't care about Mr. Shu. 

The only part of the episode that really gave me pause was Santana's arbitrary voice over while she plotted against Finn and Quinn. Trust me, a pointed glance would have sufficed. Her character is pretty straightforward. Jealous. Easy. Jerk. Now listen to her voice over and let me know if you find any part of it that isn't summed up by those three words. 

All in all, a rare win for Glee. 

Raising Hope

It's finally back, and for tonight's first episode since winter hibernation, Raising Hope did not disappoint. It was the same mix of touching family values and hilarious trailer trash comedy that I have come to expect out of the Chance family, with just the right amount of Sabrina drama thrown in. 

I'm anxious to see if they bring Jimmy's new friend back for future episodes, or if it was a one time gag. This is one of those rare shows where I think I'd be ok with either decision. They've established a strong enough world where he could play a recurring villain without it seeming like a forced multi-episode arc or contracted guest appearance. That said, if Justin never was in another episode, I wouldn't feel betrayed by the writers since they have firmly established a pattern of stand alone episodes.

Either way, I'm glad Hope is back!

White Collar

I haven't actually seen this one yet, as it doesn't come out here on the West Coast for another couple of minutes, but I'm just going to go ahead and assume it managed to meet/exceed my standards once again. I'll post more details if necessary tomorrow.

Let's Talk About Glee

Last night's post-superbowl episode of Glee was the show's most viewed episode in its limited history, and oh boy was it a train wreck. That might be a little harsh. But only a little.

First of all, it has often been my criticism of Glee that the show refuses to pick a genre and stick to it. Last night's episode/commercial/series of stunts/elaborate dream sequence illustrates this point better than ever before. At points in the episode, Glee seems like a ridiculous parody of the formulaic Disney dramas that it sprang out of (High School Musical, anyone?). See as examples any time that there is almost a "feel-good-everyone-has-learned-a-lesson" moment only to be undercut at the last moment by somebody's unwillingness to change. Karofsky comes to mind on several occasions in this one episode alone.

At other times, it just borders on the ridiculously absurd for comedy's sake. For example, see Sue Sylvester's double rampage on the set reminiscent of something out of a 1960's monster movie. Or the deadly human cannon that apparently isn't illegal in all 50 states. Or the cheerleaders routine involving stunt cyclists and sparkler bras. Really anything involved with Sue Sylvester.

At still other times, it takes itself incredibly seriously, missing obvious spoof opportunities. Anything with Kurt tends to fit this description, as it wouldn't be very PC to poke fun at homosexuality. Why were he and the Warblers in this episode anyway? Another terribly obvious overly dramatic, but not comedically acknowledged moment would be the ending of the football game. Now, granted, I never played football in high school, but I'm willing to bet that something as simple as a chant from the stands wouldn't cause me to blatantly ignore the snap I had just called for. It actually would have been more believable if the crowd hadn't joined in with the creepy looking football players. Yet Glee makes no attempt to tip their hat in mockery to the terribly contrived ending they came up with.

And don't even get me started on the complexities of the sets and lighting designs that these kids use for "rehearsal" purposes in their high school auditorium, or their constant budget issues and ever changing matching outfits and fx makeup.

Then there's the issue of the Glee/Chevy crossover commercial mixed into the middle of the episode. First of all, it re-used a plot line central to an earlier episode involving the glee club making a commercial, getting paid in mattresses, and almost getting disqualified from competition. To make it worse, the commercial was a two-part beast that played like a mini-episode of Glee with even more stilted dialogue. I point you to Sue's voiceover exposition in the first part ("little do they know that by performing in an ad they'll lose their amateur status and be barred from competition forever") and Rachel's "but wait" moment at the end of the second. Here was another missed opportunity for the writers. How easy would it have been for Glee to poke fun at itself by changing Rachel's final line from "Wait! Won't appearing in a commercial revoke our amateur status and make us ineligible for Glee Club Competition?" to "Wait, didn't we already use this plot line?" or if we wanted to maintain Glee's foolish insistence on not breaking the fourth wall, "Wait, didn't Sue already try this last year?" Either one would have at least acknowledged that Glee was reusing old material intentionally for the commercial.

Glee could be an excellent parody, but it takes itself too seriously. It could be an excellent drama, but it relies too much on the absurd. It could be an excellent straight comedy, but they insist on maintaining the Disney-esque feel-good family message. Glee tries to put its foot in too many categories, and, as a result, masters none of them.

That said, I still watch it every week, so what does that say about me?

Superbowl Sunday (From My Perspective)

It's that time of year again sports fans! When two teams go head to head in a game exactly like every other game of Sunday Night football since early fall. For those of you who don't watch much football, I thought I'd write a little something to prepare you for this momentous occasion.

The tradition of the super bowl is so old that when it started, they were still using Roman Numerals to number things. This year is Super Bowl XLV which I can only assume means "really old." It serves as a chance for advertisers to come out of their shells, think outside the box, make use of their imaginations and avoid cliches to inspire and entertain the viewing public in a way that football never has. 

Between commercials, there is a contest between two football teams chosen to compete against one another based on the absurd level of loyalty they can muster among their respective fan bases. A group of talking-heads is selected to comment on the action of this game based on reduced size of vocabulary and increased comfort with repetition. They discuss the events of the field at the viewers' lowest common denominator, often resorting to such enlightening phrases as "he really wants to score a touch down here" or "he should have caught that," or even "he just kicked the ball."

Each team gets to put 11 people on the field during the game, but they are allowed to have up to two-million-and-four on the sidelines, standing by and shouting unhelpful advice to the actual players. These people are the most important members of the team, as it is their job to throw extremely physical tantrums whenever something on the field goes in favor of the other team so as to attract the camera's attention and get their team logo more air time. 

There are some people on the field wearing black and white stripes who do not belong to either team. It is their job to watch the action on the field and make sure to cause as much controversy as possible by making obviously incorrect decisions so that the talking heads will have more to talk about and so that the network airing the game will be able to make use of their fancy replay equipment and dozens of camera angles multiple times to justify the expense of having them all. 

The two teams fight over possession of a dead pig for an hour that always turns into three, and at the end, whichever team's fans cheered the loudest is declared the winner. 

So enjoy today's football game with this in mind and cheer really loudly at your television screens and scream when something goes wrong. Trust me, the scorekeepers can hear you. I promise.

Now excuse me while I go back to watching USA's Man-athon. 

Go Packers!

USA: Good Network or Best Network?

First, USA has White Collar. As that has already been discussed in detail, I'll leave it at that.

This summer, they came out with Covert Affairs, the best feel-good spy show since Chuck. The season arc is almost as interesting as White Collar's and the characters are just about as solid. The two main characters on the show, played by Piper Perabo and Christopher Gorham, have a chemistry on screen together that means they are as interesting to watch together as Peter and Neal without the bromance. There are two reasons, though, that the characters seem a little less developed. First, there are just more characters to keep track of and care about in Covert Affairs, and on top of that, they've only had a summer season's worth of shows, so the characters haven't had much time to grow and develop. We'll see what the writers can do with another season to gain my love, but I have a feeling I will be following this show almost as avidly as I do White Collar. 

This spring, USA came out with Fairly Legal, which has managed a feat I didn't believe to be possible. They've made a legal drama that I don't immediately roll my eyes at. Usually I find legal shows about victorious underdogs to be ridiculous for the simple fact that it's hard to imagine that such idealistic lawyers actually exist in nature. The profession seems designed to eat away at people who have a sense of "right and wrong" until it has destroyed every shred of optimism and hope in favor of a paycheck based on loopholes and technicalities. Yet in most of these lawyer shows, we see lawyers as unrealistically idealistic as the political staff on The West Wing, fighting against a corrupt/outdated/invalid system (depending on the show) to triumph in the face of the odds. We've got the same thing here in Fairly Legal, an idealistic protagonist out to reconcile the wrongs of the world and make everyone happy. So what's the difference? At least she quit being  a lawyer when she got fed up with the system. Granted, she still works within it, yada yada yada. But at least it's a step in the right direction.

Their original shows are top notch. Plot, both episodic and seasonal, is interesting and nuanced. Characters are rich and emotional. Sometimes the dialogue seems forced, even in White Collar but I challenge you to find a show on any network where speech sounds natural all the time.

All in all, if I had to name a best network for dramedies, off the top of my head, I'd pick USA. It's funny that a lot of people forget it exists when they think of original programming. 

Expectations and The Coolest Dungeons & Dragons Game Ever Played

I've decided that I couldn't let that 30 Rock crack stand as my only post for today. So let's talk about this week's episode of my second favorite show (only to White Collar), and favorite comedy without reservation, Community.

This week's episode is being hailed by critics much more reputable than I as the best episode since, and perhaps including, the paintball episode of season 1. Having recently joined Twitter and following several television critics and as many members of the Community cast and writing staff that I could find, I had been receiving a lot of images and early reviews for this episode. The result was that this week's Dungeons & Dragons episode was my most anticipated episode of Community since the Apollo 13 homage.

Unfortunately, that episode had taught me a lesson: great expectations can be the downfall of a good episode. When the Apollo 13 episode aired, I was sorely disappointed. Don't get me wrong, the episode was funny, and the theme was well integrated, but I still didn't feel that I had gotten what I expected from the episode. Looking back though, I couldn't think of a single thing that had been "wrong" with the episode, that I would have changed or done away with to make it better. That's saying something, because I'm opinionated and vocal about changes that could/should have been made to "bad" episodes. This left me forced to conclude that the only real problem with the episode was that I had expected too much from it, and it just couldn't possibly live up to all the hype. So as I felt my expectations starting to rise this week, I told myself that the D&D episode wasn't likely to be very good, that it probably would involve cheap cut scenes to the characters in costume that totally would defeat the point of a good D&D game (alright, I admit it, I used to play), and whatever else I could think of to tell myself that would lower my expectations. And it worked.

Then, at around 5:30 pm Pacific Time last night I was surfing the internet and chatting with friends on Facebook when the Twitter posts started flying. It seemed like the D&D episode was living up to its hype on the East Coast. I got excited again, despite my best efforts, and decided to let myself stay that way based on current reactions. Basically I figured that an episode that was anything less than spectacular would be getting at least a few negative reviews mixed in with the good ones.

Unfortunately, I screwed up. You all could probably tell where this story was going from the beginning when you started reading, so I'll save you the additional explanation of my viewing experience. Suffice to say that I went to bed last night disappointed. Again, that is not to say that I hadn't enjoyed the episode well enough. I did. I found it truly spectacular that the writers had managed to lock the study group in their little room once more and tell a fantastical story without additional costumes. Some of the moments, like when Pierce stood over Abed-as-Draconis, forcing him to cry out Pierce's mastery to the study group, were inspired and quite comical. Yet, overall, I felt that the episode just hadn't met the bar I had set. Of course, I realized once again that this was just the result of an insanely high bar that I had set in advance.

But. I did something with last night's episode that I hadn't done with the Apollo 13 episode. I watched it again, this time with my brother (another avid fan who had been forced to miss last night's episode due to some sort of academic conflict that I didn't care enough about to remember), and had a blast. Listening to his genuine reactions to the episode as we watched, I was able to see the show again through his fresh eyes. The comedy seemed fresher and the over the top dramatics seemed even more contrived (in the good way that only Community has mastered). It was wonderful, and I finally understand what the reviews last night were saying.

This week's D&D episode of Community may not have topped the action epic of the Paintball episode, but it comes close, and it makes me want to rewatch the Apollo episode to give Dan Harmon and the writers the second chance that they have earned time and time again.

Oh yeah. Almost forgot.

Excelsior!

Over Rated

30 Rock

Hulu's Posting Rights

I'm confused, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I also am sure that somebody out there knows the answer to my question, so I'm going to ask it here, despite the fact that the likelihood that anyone who will see this post falls into that second category is very slim. What is the deal with hulu and their rights to air episodes? I'm going to ignore hulu+ for now, since that is an entirely different ball game.

Most of NBC's shows are available the day after they air for about a five week period, during which they cycle through. This is probably the most reasonable airing schedule that hulu offers, which makes sense since hulu is an NBC Universal-run website. But USA, which is a subsidiary of NBC Universal, only airs the first two episodes of a season and then requires a month long wait before the rest of the episodes start cycling through. FOX and ABC shows vary somewhere between these two methods, and CBS doesn't host their shows on hulu at all. Obviously contracts vary from show to show, and there are exceptions to all of the general guidelines I just described.

I'm choosing to ignore the possibility that these restrictions are in place as a result of hulu's side of the negotiations for two reasons. One, in the "availablitly" section of the hulu pages I have often seen the box read something to the effect of "we are currently allowed to offer..." which seems to imply that the restrictions are not of their own making. Also, episodes available on the networks own websites tend to follow similar, if not exactly the same, posting schedules, a schedule hulu has zero influence over. Therefore, we'll assume that it's the networks.

So here's my question. What benefit do the networks get from these limited contracts?

In the modern age of internet streaming technology, where convenience is everything, illegal websites are cropping up left and right that offer these shows unrestricted, without commercials, free of charge. The networks that develop and produce these shows don't see a dime for episodes that people watch in this way. At least with hulu they get a contract and payment.

I know that there have been countless shows that I have wanted to watch (Modern Family for example) but didn't have access to the pilot or early episodes because I had, unfortunately, heard about the series too late and the older episodes had already cycled through. In such cases, without additional payment for video on demand from amazon or netflix, I am unable to pick up the series and start watching halfway through. The direct result of which, is that I don't end up watching the show until at least a full year later when friends offer to lend me the DVDs. Sometimes that means that it's too late for me to get on board with a great show until after it has cancelled from lack of viewership.

Obviously I do not make enough of a difference to overall viewership for the networks to care about whether or not I watch their show, but I also know that there are other people like me who prefer to watch a show in its entirety from pilot to current episode in the order aired, and don't like to pick up shows in the middle of the season. They also probably are like me in that they prefer a free viewing experience, or at least one that doesn't cost them more than the cable they are already paying for. Add us all up, and I'm sure we'd make a sizable dent to the ratings if we could catch up and start watching episodes live. Plus, if those "like-me" people are truly like me, then as soon as they've started watching, they'll start talking to all of their friends, even the ones who don't mind watching episodes out of order, and spread the word. Therefore, it seems to me that networks would get more benefit out of providing their content on hulu to provide a legal viewing method whose commercials and contracts would provide them with some revenue as opposed to the multitude of online piracy sites where their shows end up anyway, despite their best efforts.

The desire to control their content is only natural, and I completely understand it. Networks can't get paid for stolen property, and they can't make new shows without some source of revenue. The more control the networks can maintain over their content, the more control they will have over its price, which in turn leads to more episodes, series, etc. That's just supply and demand. The demand is high for quality programming. The problem for the networks? So is the supply. Placing arbitrary restrictions on episodes posted on hulu only serves to potentially drive viewers to illegal sites that provide the restricted content.

Now I'm sure that none of this is news to the people at the television networks establishing contracts with hulu. This isn't exactly rocket science, and executives and administrators tend to be fairly intelligent people. Which means that there is some benefit to these restrictions that I'm not seeing. Right? If you know what that invisible benefit is, please let me know.

Because it seems to me that the networks are mistaking restrictions for control.

White Collar Theories: What About Mozzie?

Some of you may have noticed that in my last White Collar entry I mentioned five theories. I pretty heavily addressed the first three and touched on the fourth, but pretty much ignored the fifth point, the one about Mozzie. It's time I finally addressed it. For those of you who would like refreshing, I mentioned that Mozzie was not a part of the conspiracy against Neal, but that the writers were certainly making it difficult for me to maintain that belief.

So for today, let me flash back to last week's flashback episode and point out what why Mozzie could be a part of Adler's con every bit as much as Kate or Alex. Also, I'll mention why if Mozzie is involved, he'll be working with/for Adler, not above him as was suggested in the comments on my earlier post. Finally, I'll address why Mozzie actually won't be involved, once the final curtain has been pulled back (if it ever is).


Why Mozzie Is In On It

Neal says it right at the beginning of the first flash back sequence. "If you want to know about Adler, we've got to start with Mozzie."

When Neal first meets Mozzie, the toupee'd  goatee sporting fellow is running a street con, and Neal is his first mark. Of course, Neal outsmarts the sneaky duo and goes off with an extra $500 of Mozzie's money in his pockets. Now, one of Moz's greatest features is his unwavering loyalty to Neal. Only once have we ever seen him betray Neal, ratting him out to "the suit," and that only results in an emotional break down for the little man. You'd think he'd extend this loyalty to his other friends and partners as well, but he abandons his card spinning cohort almost in the blink of an eye to track down Neal. When Neal questions him on that very fact, Mozzie just shrugs and says that he "wanted an upgrade." Well maybe Adler was the upgrade now that Mozzie could bring him a mark like Neal. Caffrey even suspects him at first, asking him, "What's your angle?" before letting him into the apartment.

Apparently Mozzie's angle is that he wants Neal to pull off the perfect con on Adler. That's what we're led to believe anyway. Here's a fun little memory game for you, though. When Neal and Mozzie are discussing the new con, Caffrey asks his new friend, "who's the mark?" What happens next? Mozzie replies, "Vincent Adler." Right? Wrong! As soon as Caffrey poses the question, the shot cuts to Peter answering, not Mozzie. It's the con man's greatest trick, getting the mark to supply the needed information. Mozzie didn't have to speak the lie because Peter did it for him. Now I realize that these two events were happening 8 years apart in completely different time lines, and I'll even concede that Mozzie almost assuredly uttered the same words to Neal in the past scenario that we just don't get to see. The fact that we don't see it happen though, that's important. The writers, the Adlers to our Burke in this game of FBI vs ConMan that they're playing with the viewers, show us what they want us to see.

If you want a little less "meta" justification for Mozzie's involvement, I'll point you to the fact that Mozzie brought Neal to Adler in the first place. Adler would never have been able to start his long con on Caffrey if Mozzie hadn't pushed the two into each others' lives. Neal practically says so himself, explaining to Peter, "that was the first time I heard Adler's name," referring to Mozzie's plan to retrieve the password.

The final argument on this topic is the one I made earlier for Kate. Adler, wanting to get close to Neal, uses his cohorts to do it for him. And who is closer to Neal than Mozzie? Burke's getting up there, but still, Mozzie has him beat. Mozzie even makes significant effort to get closer to Neal throughout the "Forging Bonds" episode, going so far as to persistently try to pull Neal away from Kate, his other friend, in order to remind him of their mutual crime and bond. "Don't kid yourself, Kate doesn't even know your real name!" He insists, one time, trying to keep Neal on track to steal Adler's cash. But then again, why would two people who are working for the same man with the same basic goal try to keep their mark away from the other? If professional jealousy isn't enough, (ie they both want the glory of being the one to break him) then you have to consider that one of the two isn't working for Adler. Which brings us to segment number 2.


Why Mozzie Isn't, or If He Is, Why He's Not the Mastermind


One very simple reason. We see him get shot.

If you would like me to explain that a little better, I'll break it down into parts. One, he gets shot by Adler's hit man. Why would Adler kill his own man. But the same hit man supposedly killed Kate, and it is my theory that Kate is still alive, so why not Mozzie too? Part two, we saw his shooting occur. We watch the hit man shoot Mozzie. It's an offhanded side shot as the man is walking by. It's not a carefully aimed shot calculated to miss vital organs so that Mozzie can live through the shooting and survive to continue working on Neal. We don't see Kate's death. There could very easily have been a complicated (or not so complicated) escape plan that had her off the plane well before it blows up. Just sayin' there's a difference.

For this same reason, Mozzie can not be behind Adler. The argument could be made that Adler decided to have Mozzie killed off once he had learned too much. If Adler is working for Mozzie though, then there is no way Mozzie gets shot casually on the park bench.


Why Mozzie's Isn't In On It: Meta Reasoning

Mozzie is one of the key three characters.
(I distinguish him as one of the key characters by the fact that he had an episode devoted to him. Remember that one where we got to meet his lady friend earlier this summer?)

It is the style of White Collar thus far to follow Neal and Peter, our heroes, and ignore the plot lines of the villains, except in the snippets that Neal and Peter witness them as they cross paths. If Mozzie were to turn out to be working for Adler, or even if Mozzie were the mastermind behind Adler, then he would cease to be a character whose antics the audience is privy too. Either that or the nature of White Collar would have to so drastically change to accommodate the villain's story that it wouldn't really be White Collar anymore.